[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [topicmaps-comment] Can subjectIdentity elements gua
Ivan The identity endless story, part 23617 ... Maybe your input would be of interest for Published Subjects TC, and I jump on the occasion to recall that all that's going on in that TC is on-line :)) http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/index.shtml Now to your point: ... two topics with identical subjectIdentity/resourceRef elements ... <snip/> 1. If authors use <resourceRef> it should be clear to them and the users of their TM, that the resource *is* the subject. See XTM 1.0 / 3.6.2. The topic subject is the image bla.jpg itself in its addressable image bank, not whatever it represents, means etc. Using <resourceRef> here means that you are about exactly that image and not another one. Full stop. Nothing to do with whatever is represented or meant or hidden, whatever, on this image. And using it in different contexts and topic maps, one knowing that is it encrypted, and the other not being aware of it, is not a problem. I can use the same image of the moon in an astronomy context or in an esoteric context. But if I want to retrieve this image from an image bank, this is not a problem. And using <resourceRef> is no more that pointing the right image in the right image bank. No more, no less. If now C merges those two topic maps A and B, maybe he makes a mistake, because that merging does not make sense. The mistake is not made by A nor by B, it's made by C. You denounce the "automatic merging" stipulation in the specification. Maybe something has to be cleared off here. The merging is automatic as long as *someone has decided to process and merge*. But my view is that merging is a decision that should not be made automatic and blind. 2. Now if authors use <subjectIndicatorRef>, BTW an eventuality that you don't seem to explore, that means they somehow tranfer the responsibility of identity to another party. For example, if I use <subjectIndicatorRef> to point to : http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9702/cartwheel1_hst_big.jp g ... that means I trust people who built the telescope, get the image, processed it and put it on line, to represent what I *mean* by that topic, i.e. an <instanceOf> "colliding galaxies". If that image is in fact an encrypted Ben Laden message, that might mean my trust was misplaced. There is nothing you can do in principle against that kind of events occurring, so you must assume the whole information system involved here, including telescope makers, astronomers, image processors, webmasters, etc ... is grounded at every level on a common background of expertise and trust ... To make it short, I don't think you point at a flaw in the specification. There are some subtle (and potentially dangerous if not correctly understood) distinctions to be made by topic maps authors and users, and there are risks generic to any information and communication system, that topic maps won't get rid of by some peculiar magic. If not grounded in communities of agreement and trust, topic maps can and will be used very efficiently like any other communication tool, to spread out false identities, hoaxes, distorted news, misleading assertions, confusing descriptions, unwanted or deliberate brainwashing, etc ... Hope that helps Bernard *********************************** Bernard Vatant - Consultant bernard.vatant@mondeca.com Mondeca - "Making Sense of Content" www.mondeca.com ***********************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC